Jagmeet Singh’s convenient politics of faith

15 Oct 2017

Weeks after a CBC journalist’s controversial grilling of new NDP leader Jagmeet Singh on display of posters of Talwinder Singh Parmar—the man found to be the mastermind of Air India bombing by an inquiry commission but never tried in a court—Singh was again asked a few days ago if displaying the posters was appropriate. This is what he said: “I’m not here to tell what a community should or shouldn’t do.”

Like his sharp suits, Jagmeet wears a tailored faith—using it to criticise a Hindu tradition but contradicting it to support face coverings worn by some Muslim women

In August, Singh railed on Twitter against an Indian Hindu festival that celebrates sibling love. On Raksha Bandhan (literally, the ties of protection), sisters tie threads on the wrists of their brothers and cousins. The thread symbolises a brother’s promise to protect the sister and the sister’s protective wishes for the brother.

Singh had retweeted a popular Youtube star’s tweet that found Raksha Bandhan (also called Rakhi or Rakhri) sexist as it signals that sisters need to be protected by brothers.

This is what Singh wrote in a series of tweets: “Growing up my mother taught us that Raksha Bandhan contradicted the Sikh belief in the full equality of all genders. So I’ve never tied Rakhi in my life. But I feel there’s something very powerful in changing a tradition to make it more just. Raksha Bandan has always bothered me because of the very overt sexist message it sends to women: they are powerless & need protection.”

The popular Youtube star, whom Singh had retweeted, thought this about Raksha Bandhan: “Girls shouldn’t be raised to believe that brothers should protect and sisters require protection. Rather, they should be taught that they are equal and should both make a promise to each other.”
What’s wrong with retweeting this?

Well, actually, it’s not just brothers promising to protect sisters. Sisters too wish for safety, protection and long life of brothers. Moreover, women need to be protected in certain events such as when they face sexual assault from men who are ususally physically stronger—a point that could not be lost on a criminal lawyer that Singh once was. In India, where women are rarely safe on streets and state capacity is low, Raksha Bandhan gains significant meaning.

Yet, Raksha Bandhan may rightly appear to many as a medieval sexist ritual that demeans women who are seen as helpless and dependent on males. Singh endorsed the Youtube star’s appeal to “fix the tradition”. Singh tweeted: “Big up @IISuperwomanII for challenging this sexist belief.”

Singh has turned his religious identity into a potent tool for his politics. He proudly exhibits his beard, his turban and his other articles of faith. He finds the inspiration for his politics in his Sikh faith. “My Sikh spirituality also influences my political style,” Singh had told GQ in an interview in February.

The leader of a national party basing his politics on his religious faith could be on a slippery slope since faiths are often ranged against each other on many issues. But I think what Singh means is he finds in his faith the inspiration for his politics of social justice as both require him to fight against injustices. In any case, Sikh faith with its emphasis on social justice can indeed contribute positively to modern politics.

So, what’s wrong with a politician who finds a tradition sexist and calls it out drawing inspiration from his faith?

Nothing.

Except that Singh has not always done that. If he had, he would have denounced Niqab, the face covering, too which he has defended with all his might. His Sikh faith not only prohibits the face covering, but the Sikh gurus—who inspire Singh—had also found it sexist and demeaning for women.

Less than a week after calling for reforming the Hindu tradition of Raksha Bandhan—which, according to his Sikh faith, is sexist—Singh opposed Quebec’s Bill 62 because it would ban face coverings that some Muslim women wear. He said if the bill was passed it would contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

While it is debatable whether a ban on face coverings would violate human rights, what is clear is this: the Sikh Gurus found women’s face coverings discriminatory, and the Sikh faith prohibits it. Singh, a baptised Sikh, can’t be unaware of it.

While it is debatable whether a ban on face coverings would violate human rights, what is clear is this: the Sikh Gurus found women’s face coverings discriminatory, and the Sikh faith prohibits it. Singh, a baptised Sikh, can’t be unaware of it.

Even though there is no clear evidence if the Sikh Gurus prohibited Raksha Bandhan (which Singh says his mother told him contradicted the Sikh belief in the full equality of all genders), the position of Sikhism on women’s face coverings is not a matter of interpretation. The practice was denounced by the Gurus and prohibited. No woman wearing face covering could attend Sikh congregation.
Singh could display and hide his faith according to convenience because not many in Canadian media know what Sikhism says about face coverings.

Here’s what Singh would not tell Canadians about his faith.

The third Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Amar Das, is widely known to have espoused the cause of gender equality. Nearly a millennium ago in India, the condition of women in Hinduism (the religion from which Sikhism emerged but shares many cultural and philosophical ideas) was oppressive. In addition to its own regressive social codes, Hinduism had also come under the influence of Muslim culture. Most Hindu women wore face coverings. Once a Hindu queen came to see the Guru. The Guru refused to meet the queen unless she removed her face covering. He pronounced that no woman wearing a face covering would be allowed in the congregation because he found it was an oppressive practice. Since then, the Sikh women cannot wear face coverings. The Sikh code of conduct, which was later formalised, prohibits it.

Who decides what Sikhs do and what they can’t? It is the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee or SGPC. It is the top organisation of the Sikhs in India and manages the most important Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple. Drawing on various Sikh traditions, it has formed a code of conduct which most Sikhs follow. This is what the code says about face coverings: “It is not proper for a Sikh woman to wear a veil or keep her face hidden by veil or cover.” We know why the SGPC has banned the veil—it has always been considered discriminatory and oppresisve in the Sikh faith. When Singh defends face coverings worn by Muslim women, he is not merely defending individual choice—he is contradicting his own Guru and violating the gender justice that his own faith promotes.

But he doesn’t call for “fixing” the tradition of face coverings which was clearly declared sexist and discriminatory by his own faith.

Singh applies one standard to the Hindu practice of Raksha Bandhan and another to the Muslim practice of face coverings. Of course, he did not call for banning Raksha Bandhan. He finds it sexist according to his faith and wants it only to be “fixed”. But he doesn’t call for “fixing” the tradition of face coverings which was clearly declared sexist and discriminatory by his own faith.

Either Singh is not honest about his faith or he thinks he should not use it to judge face coverings. The latter choice could be fair for politicians who do not base their politics so much on their faith but not for Singh, especially when he criticses a Hindu tradition without any such qualms. Moreover, the Sikh Gurus condemned unjust social practices of Hindus as well as Muslims. Singh should either be careful about bringing his faith-based ideas into his politics or get more honest about his faith and oppose face coverings. He cannot wear it to his convenience like his tailored suits.

Singh is a warm, genial fellow but his selective targeting of a Hindu tradition might make him appear racist to many. That would be a huge negative for his campaign. Singh exudes positivity, charisma and oodles of energy. The fact that a man of colour has come to lead a national-level party—and might lead the country as well—speaks highly of the NDP as well as Canada, and Singh too. Singh should not waste this historic opportunity by digging himself into deep holes. He should add more substance to his style.